1 resistance to change: a literature review and
TRANSCRIPT
1
RESISTANCE TO CHANGE: A LITERATURE REVIEW AND EMPIRICAL
STUDY
Authors: Pardo del Val, Manuela & Martínez Fuentes, Clara
Universitat de València, Spain
Facultad de Economía
Avda. Los Naranjos, s/n
46022 Valencia – SPAIN
Tel.: +34 96 382 8312
Fax: +34 96 382 8333
E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]
2
RESISTANCE TO CHANGE: A LITERATURE REVIEW AND EMPIRICAL
STUDY
Abstract: This paper examines organizational change, focusing on the distinction of
changes according to their scope and presenting a typology of evolutionary and strategic
changes. We also offer an in depth study of resistance to change. Through empirical
research, we have analyzed the importance of the sources of resistance to change
defined theoretically, also considering both types of changes. We have shown which
sources of resistance differ most, according to the scope of change, offering hints about
where organizations should pay special attention when initiating a change process.
Key words : change, resistance to change
3
RESISTANCE TO CHANGE: A LITERATURE REVIEW AND EMPIRICAL
STUDY
Many authors (Lawrence, 1954; Maurer, 1996; Strebel, 1994; Waddell and
Sohal, 1998, among others) stress that the reasons for the failure of many change
initiatives can be found in resistance to change. Resistance to change introduces costs
and delays into the change process (Ansoff, 1990) that are difficult to anticipate
(Lorenzo, 2000) but must be taken into consideration. Resistance has also been
considered as a source of information, being useful in learning how to develop a more
successful change process (Beer and Eisenstat, 1996; Goldstein, 1988; Lawrence, 1954;
Piderit, 2000; Waddell and Sohal, 1998). Undoubtedly, resistance to change is a key
topic in change management and should be seriously considered to help the
organization to achieve the advantages of the transformation.
Considering the importance of resistance to change, this paper aims to deepen in
this field through a theoretical exposition of the concept. Later, we will offer the results
of an empirical study of Spanish firms that had recently undergone a change process. In
this study, we analyzed the main sources of resistance to change and their relationships
with types of changes.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Organizational change is an empirical observation in an organizational entity of
variations in shape, quality or state over time (Van de Ven and Poole, 1995), after the
deliberate introduction of new ways of thinking, acting and operating (Schalk, Campbell
and Freese, 1998). The general aim of organizational change is an adaptation to the
4
environment (Barr, Stimpert and Huff, 1992; Child and Smith, 1987; Leana and Barry,
2000) or an improvement in performance (Boeker, 1997; Keck and Tushman, 1993).
This definition encompasses many situations that should be distinguished by
applying certain dimensions to establish ‘typologies of change’. We will refer to the
scope of change, because it is one of the most used variables in literature to design
change typologies. That way, changes can be defined along a continuum starting in low-
scope or evolutionary changes to high-scope or strategic ones. With the aim of making
the use of this dimension (scope) easier, we will describe both extremes of the
continuum, but we should always keep in mind that real changes are not a pure type but
a mixture.
First, we will describe evolutionary, incremental, or first order changes. These
are small changes that alter certain small aspects, looking for an improvement in the
present situation, but keeping the general working framework (Blumenthal and
Haspeslagh, 1994; Goodstein and Burke, 1991; Greiner, 1972; Levy, 1986; Mezias and
Glynn, 1993; Nadler and Tushman, 1989; 1990). The second type of changes are
strategic, transformational, revolutionary or second order ones. They are radical
transformations, where the organization totally changes its essential framework
(Blumenthal and Haspeslagh, 1994; Ghoshal and Bartlett, 1996; Goodstein and Burke,
1991; Marshak, 1993; Nadler and Tushman, 1989, 1990), looking generally for a new
competitive advantage (Hutt, Walker and Frankwick, 1995) and affecting the basic
capabilities of the organization (Ruiz and Lorenzo, 1999).
Once we have introduced the concept of organizational change and have
presented a typology, we will analyze the term ‘resistance to change’. On one hand,
resistance is a phenomenon that affects the change process, delaying or slowing down
its beginning, obstructing or hindering its implementation, and increasing its costs
5
(Ansoff, 1990). On the other hand, resistance is any conduct that tries to keep the status
quo, that is to say, resistance is equivalent to inertia, as the persistence to avoid change
(Maurer, 1996; Rumelt, 1995; Zaltman and Duncan, 1977). So, inertia and thus
resistance are not negative concepts in general, since change is not inherently beneficial
for organizations. Even more, resistance could show change managers certain aspects
that are not properly considered in the change process (Waddell and Sohal, 1998).
Our research follows Rumelt (1995), and divides the sources of resistance into
five groups. We have added certain sources of resistance to Rumelt’s proposal, so we
have also altered the names of the categories in order to include the new topics.
Although Rumelt (1995) insists that inertia is a problem in the strategy formulation
stage as well as in the implementation one, he does not distinguish the five groups of
sources of inertia according to both stages. We have tried to make this distinction and
suggest that the first, second and third group are sources of resistance that appear during
the formulation stage, because they deal with factors that complicate the situation’s
analysis and the evaluation of the various change alternatives. Groups four and five
correspond to the implementation stage, since they are an obstacle once the change
strategy is already formulated. This classification and the list of sources of resistance/
inertia can be seen in table 1.
Insert Table 1 about here
Sources of Resistance and Inertia in the Formulation Stage
Regarding the first group of sources of resistance, change starts with the
perception of its need, so a wrong initial perception is the first barrier to change. We call
this first group ‘distorted perception, interpretation barriers and vague strategic
priorities’. It includes: (a) myopia, or inability of the company to look into the future
6
with clarity (Barr et al., 1992; Krüger, 1996; Rumelt, 1995); (b) denial or refusal to
accept any information that is not expected or desired (Barr et al., 1992; Rumelt, 1995;
Starbuck et al., 1978); (c) perpetuation of ideas, meaning the tendency to go on with the
present thoughts although the situation has changed (Barr et al., 1992; Krüger, 1996;
Rumelt, 1995; Zeffane, 1996); (d) implicit assumptions, which are not discussed due to
its implicit character and therefore distort reality (Starbuck, Greve and Hedberg, 1978);
(e) communication barriers, that lead to information distortion or misinterpretations
(Hutt et al., 1995); and (f) organizational silence, which limits the information flow
with individuals who do not express their thoughts, meaning that decisions are made
without all the necessary information (Morrison and Milliken, 2000; Nemeth, 1997).
The second main group of sources of resistance deals with a low motivation for
change. We have identified five fundamental sources: (a) direct costs of change
(Rumelt, 1995); (b) cannibalization costs, that is to say, change that brings success to a
product but at the same time brings losses to others, so it requires some sort of sacrifice
(Rumelt, 1995); (c) cross subsidy comforts, because the need for a change is
compensated through the high rents obtained without change with another different
factor, so that there is no real motivation for change (Rumelt, 1995); (d) past failures,
which leave a pessimistic image for future changes (Lorenzo, 2000); and (e) different
interests among employees and management, or lack of motivation of employees who
value change results less than managers value them (Waddell and Sohal, 1998).
The lack of a creative response is the third set of sources of resistance. There are
three main reasons that diminish the creativeness in the search for appropriate change
strategies: (a) fast and complex environmental changes, which do not allow a proper
situation analysis (Ansoff, 1990; Rumelt, 1995); (b) reactive mind-set, resignation, or
tendency to believe that obstacles are inevitable (Rumelt, 1995); and (c) inadequate
7
strategic vision or lack of clear commitment of top management to changes (Rumelt,
1995; Waddell and Sohal, 1998).
Sources of Resistance and Inertia in the Implementation Stage
Implementation is the critical step between the decision to change and the
regular use of it at the organization (Klein and Sorra, 1996). In this stage, two more
resistance groups can be found. The first of them deals with political and cultural
deadlocks to change. It consists of: (a) implementation climate and relation between
change values and organizational values, considering that a strong implementation
climate when the values’ relation is negative will result in resistance and opposition to
change (Klein and Sorra, 1996; Schalk et al., 1998); (b) departmental politics or
resistance from those departments that will suffer with the change implementation (Beer
and Eisenstat, 1996; Beer et al., 1990; Rumelt, 1995); (c) incommensurable beliefs, or
strong and definitive disagreement among groups about the nature of the problem and
its consequent alternative solutions (Klein and Sorra, 1996; Rumelt, 1995; Zeffane,
1996); (d) deep rooted values and emotional loyalty (Krüger, 1996; Nemeth, 1997;
Strebel, 1994); and (e) forgetfulness of the social dimension of changes (Lawrence,
1954; Schalk et al., 1998).
Last but not least, a set of five sources of resistance with different characteristics
have been bunched together around the last group of sources of resistance: (a)
leadership inaction, sometimes because leaders are afraid of uncertainty, sometimes for
fear of changing the status quo (Beer and Eisenstat, 1996; Burdett, 1999; Hutt et al.,
1995; Kanter, 1989; Krüger, 1996; Maurer, 1996; Rumelt, 1995); (b) embedded routines
(Hannan and Freeman, 1984; Rumelt, 1995; Starbuck et al., 1978); (c) collective action
problems, specially dealing with the difficulty to decide who is going to move first or
8
how to deal with free-riders (Rumelt, 1995); (d) lack of the necessary capabilities to
implement change – capabilities gap – (Rumelt, 1995); and (e) cynicism (Maurer, 1996;
Reichers, Wanous and Austin, 1997).
After this theoretical exposition, we will tackle the objectives of our empirical
research. We will start with the methodology of our research and the description of our
sample. Then, we will check if the sources of resistance resulting from the literature
review agree with the ones observed in business practice. Finally, we will analyze the
relationship between both types of changes described in the theoretical framework and
the sources of resistance within each of them.
METHODOLOGY AND DESCRIPTION OF THE SAMPLE
We carried out our quantitative research at Spanish companies with more than
fifty employees that had undergone a change process recently. According to the
database Dun & Bradstreet 2000 (50.000 best Spanish companies) this population
consisted of 12.656 organizations. Out of it, we extracted a random sample of 1.800, to
whom we sent our questionnaire, both by electronic and ordinary mail, and obtained 86
valid answers. The questionnaire was designed according to theoretical considerations
and it was later tested to check its suitability, first with a group of experts (university
staff and several business people) and then with three personal interviews to managers
in companies of the sample.
Out of the 86 respondents 15% are from top management, while the rest are
middle managers. Most (70%) have a university degree. As far as the profile of the
companies is concerned, almost two thirds of the respondents are from the industrial
sector. About half of them have an annual turnover of less than 30 million Euros, and
only 20% go over 90 million. One third of the sample has less than 100 employees, the
9
second third has between 100 and 300, and the last third has over 300. Regarding the
types of changes that their answers address, 58.8% of the respondents consider the
change faced by their institution as evolutionary, while 22.4% state it was more
strategic and 18.8% of the companies express an intermediate situation.
This questionnaire aimed to serve as a tool to test two main hypotheses. Firstly,
we wanted to check whether the list of theoretical sources of resistance to change were
observable in our empirical research. Secondly, we wanted to test if resistance to change
is higher in strategic than in evolutionary changes. We differentiated both types of
changes through a continuum that described change as extremely strategic (‘change has
been radical and we are not the same company we were before’) or extremely
evolutionary (‘we have modified certain specific aspects, but the company remains in
essence as it was before changing’). Respondents had to indicate their position among
five points on that continuum.
RESULTS OF THE EMPIRICAL RESEARCH
As stated in the methodology, the empirical research we have carried out in
order to achieve our goals is based on a questionnaire, mailed to managers (middle and
top managers). They had to answer several questions dealing with a change process that
had happened in their companies. Among these questions, the one that allows us to
establish our first planned comparison included a list describing the factors we have
considered previously as sources of resistance to change. We asked managers to point
out how much the before-mentioned sources of resistance had affected change, ranging
from 1 to 5. Scoring 1 meant that it was not a source of resistance at all, and 5 meant
that such source of resistance was so powerful that it forced the organization to rethink
10
the change strategy. The answers we obtained regarding the incidence of the sources of
resistance to change are shown in table 2.
Insert Table 2 about here
As can be observed, no mean is under 1.5; this indicates that all sources of
resistance have had an influence, more or less, and in this way our theoretical exposition
is supported and thus, we have achieved our first objective. The questionnaire also
allowed managers to include other sources of resistance. Since none of them added any
significant factor, our list is not only appropriate, but also complete.
Going more deeply into this first goal, we can use the information provided by
table 2 to gain more insight about the incidence of the sources of resistance to change.
Starting with the means, it is observable that the lowest mean is 1.65 and the highest
2.70, so resistance to change exists but it is generally not too strong to affect the change
process seriously, considering that the scale allowed scores up to 5. So, changes always
carried resistance, but no single source was pointed out as a severe difficulty to achieve
the change goals.
The source of resistance to change with the highest mean is related to the
difficulties created by the existence of deeply rooted values – inside the group of
political and cultural deadlocks, in the implementation stage. It is followed by the lack
of the capabilities needed to implement the change process, and then departmental
politics. Resistance linked to costs and to incommensurable beliefs are next.
Regarding our second goal, we will now check our hypothesis. Specifically, we
want to observe if resistance is higher in strategic than in evolutionary changes.
Therefore, we will run the same descriptive analysis distinguishing both types of
change. Next, in order to check if the differences are significant, we will run a typical
deviation analysis, being the mean of the sources of resistance the dependent variable,
11
and the type of change being the factor. Since strategic changes are just 22.4%, this
figure is too small to support significant results; however, the analysis shows some
interesting findings that we would like to stress and that encourage further research to
expand on them.
Resistance to change seems to be always more powerful in strategic changes
than in evolutionary ones, except in one source of resistance that it remains the same
(‘forgetfulness of the social dimension of changes due to forgetting supervisors’). So,
data suggests that the more radical and transformational change is, the more powerful
resistance to change is. This conclusion answers our second planned comparison, and it
is the first step to examine which sources of resistance are comparatively stronger. This
result makes it fundamental for organizations to pay special attention to those sources of
resistance to change. Table 3 presents the list of the main apparently significant
differences between resistance in evolutionary and strategic change.
Insert Table 3 about here
The last column shows the F statistic and its significance. It exhibits which
sources of resistance present a higher variation considering evolutionary and strategic
changes. Through the value of F we can observe that the highest differences are in the
difficulty to find a creative answer, either for resignation or for the fast and complex
environment. The source related to deep rooted values that hinder change is also highly
different. Next, the two sources of resistance that present high variation are the different
interests between employees and managers, and the existence of change values that are
against organizational values.
It is also interesting to have a look at the relative position of the sources of
resistance according to their importance for companies. That way, the analysis of the
12
essential differences between types of change is rounded off with the information about
their higher or lower importance for any change, as well as for both types of changes.
Comparing the degree of importance of the sources of resistance in general
change, and the degree in evolutionary and strategic changes, we could observe that in
evolutionary changes the progression of the importance of the sources of resistance is
almost the same as in changes in general. However, in strategic changes such hierarchy
is altered, specially because the sources of resistance with the highest differences
between both types of changes increase their importance and rise to the first places on
the list. For example, the lack of a creative response due to the fast and complex
environment was eleventh in general changes and thirteenth in evolutionary changes,
but it moves up to the fourth place of importance in strategic changes. A similar
movement happens with the lack of a creative answer due to resignation, which was
fifteenth and sixteenth and is sixth in strategic changes.
The resistance related to the existence of deep-rooted values that make change
difficult remains unaltered. It is both the most powerful for any change and one of the
sources that increases its mean most by comparing evolutionary and strategic changes.
We should bear in mind that such source of resistance is linked to a strong culture that
stresses loyalty and cohesion as key values, limiting at the same time the innovation and
creative capability by not allowing the existence of dissident people inside the
organization. These characteristics show that it is a serious source of resistance, thus
obviously its incidence is higher in changes that seek a fundamental transformation in
the organization. Therefore, companies should consider the existing values as one of the
most important possible sources of resistance and that concern should increase the more
strategic the change is.
13
Similarly, both sources of resistance with the highest differences, related to the
difficulty of finding creative answers, seem to be comparatively much more dangerous
in strategic changes. So, the results of a fast and changing environment that obstructs
the adoption of appropriate decisions, or the feeling of resignation by considering that
the organization’s problems are inevitable, will be probably more devastating the more
radical the change is.
On the other hand, results show that the second most powerful source of
resistance for any change, dealing with departmental politics, does not present a
statistically significant difference for each type of change. The fourth source, related to
the lack of motivation due to cannibalization costs and cross subsidy comforts, deserves
similar consideration. That is to say, both sources of resistance have to be seriously
considered for any organization facing a change process, independently of the scope of
such change.
CONCLUSIONS
Resistance to change is an essential factor to be considered in any change
process, since a proper management of resistance is the key for change success or
failure. By resistance to change we understand any phenomenon that hinders the process
at its beginning or its development, aiming to keep the current situation. Therefore, we
will establish a similarity between the concepts of resistance and inertia.
Literature offers many studies with sources of resistance to change. This paper
follows the five-group classification of Rumelt (1995), completing it with other authors’
contributions. In the empirical research, our theoretical list has been supported by our
investigation of Spanish companies undergoing a change process.
14
Furthermore, our research has also allowed us to order the importance of the
sources of resistance to change. Later, we have distinguished how they affect changes
according to their scope, that is to say, how they affect evolutionary and strategic
changes. We arrived to the conclusion that resistance to change is generally higher in
strategic changes than in evolutionary ones.
Looking closer at the results, it is fundamental to note that the source of
resistance identified as most powerful for any type of change, dealing with the existence
of deep-rooted values, is also one of the sources that presents the highest differences
between evolutionary and strategic changes. Moreover, four more of the top-ranked
overall resistance factors present high variations when considering change as
evolutionary or strategic. These factors are the different interests among employees and
management, communication barriers, organizational silence, and capabilities gap. This
conclusion leads to the suggestion that these are the most significant issues managers
leading a strategic change process should be aware of.
Could change leaders do anything to deal with those sources of resistance?
There might not be universal advice to avoid resistance to change, however, according
to these results, we would suggests that managers should pay special attention to certain
topics. First, to reduce resistance caused by deep-rooted values, managers should
consider how much organizational culture fits with change objectives and what could be
done to improve such fit before the change process starts. This cultural consideration
would also help to bring employees and management interests closer and to avoid
organizational silence. Another key aspect in change seems to point towards training.
Training would be a good tool to surpass communication difficulties and thus avoid
resistance caused by communication barriers, as well as to help reduce the gap between
the present situation and the capabilities required for the change process.
15
This paper adds valuable insights to both the academic and the business
community. From the academic point of view, our research contributes to the
knowledge of resistance to change by a compendium of previous works, which has been
later tested with an empirical study. Furthermore, we insist on the difference of
resistance to change according to both types of changes. The business world, on the
other hand, will find in this paper a set of reflections that will help to determine which
aspects should be specially considered at an organizational change.
16
REFERENCES
Ansoff, I.H. (1990), Implanting Strategic Management, Prentice Hall International, Ltd.
London
Barr, P.S., Stimpert, J.L. and Huff, A.S. (1992) “Cognitive Change, Strategic Action,
and Organizational Renewal”, Strategic Management Journal, 13 (Special Issue),
pp. 15-36.
Beer, M. and Eisenstat, R.A. (1996) “Developing an organization capable of
implementing strategy and learning”, Human Relations, 49 (5), pp. 597-617.
Beer, M. Eisenstat, R.A. and Spector, B. (1990) “Why Change Programs Don’t Produce
Change”, Harvard Business Review, 68 (6), pp. 158-166.
Blumenthal, B. and Haspeslagh, P. (1994) “Toward a Definition of Corporate
Transformation”, Sloan Management Review, 35 (3), pp. 101-106.
Boeker, W. (1997) “Strategic change: The influence of managerial characteristics and
organizational growth”, Academy of Management Journal, 40 (1), pp. 152-170.
Burdett, J.O. (1999) “Leadership in change and the wisdom of a gentleman”,
Participation & Empowerment: An International Journal, 7 (1), pp. 5-14.
Child, J. and Smith, C. (1987) “The context and process of organizational
transformation - Cadbury Limited in its sector”, Journal of Management Studies,
24 (6), pp. 565-593.
Ghoshal, S. and Bartlett, C.A. (1996) “Rebuilding Behavioral Context: A Blueprint for
Corporate Renewal”, Sloan Management Review, 37 (2), pp. 23-36.
Goldstein, J. (1988) “A Far-from-Equilibrium Systems Approach to Resistance to
Change”, Organizational Dynamics, (Autumn), pp. 16-26.
Goodstein, L.D. and Burke, W.W. (1991) “Creating Successful Organization Change”,
Organizational Dynamics, 19 (4), pp. 5-17.
17
Greiner, L.E. (1972) “Evolution and revolution as organizations grow”, Harvard
Business Review, (July/Aug.), pp. 37-46.
Hannan, M.T. and Freeman, J. (1984) “Structural Inertia and Organizational Change”,
American Sociological Review, 49, pp. 149-164.
Hutt, M.D., Walker, B.A. and Frankwick, G.L. (1995) “Hurdle the Cross-Functional
Barriers to Strategic Change”, Sloan Management Review, 36 (3), pp. 22-30.
Kanter, R.M. (1989) “The New Managerial Work”, Harvard Business Review, 67 (6),
pp. 85-92.
Keck, S.L. and Tushman, M.L. (1993) “Environmental and Organizational Context and
Executive Team Structure”, Academy of Management Journal, 36 (6), pp. 1314-
1344.
Klein, K.J. and Sorra, J.S. (1996) “The challenge of innovation implementation”,
Academy of Management Review, 21 (4), pp. 22-42.
Krüger, W. (1996) “Implementation: The Core Task of Change Management”, CEMS
Business Review, 1, pp. 77-96.
Lawrence, P.R. (1954) “How to Deal with Resistance to Change”, Harvard Business
Review, (May/June), pp. 49-57.
Leana, C.R. and Barry, B. (2000) “Stability and Change as Simultaneous Experiences in
Organizational Life”, Academy of Management Review, 25 (4), pp. 753-759.
Levy, A. (1986) “Second-Order Planned Change: Definition and Conceptualization”,
Organizational Dynamics, (Summer), pp. 5-20.
Lorenzo, J.D. (2000) “Barreras en los procesos de cambio en las organizaciones: estudio
de un caso”, Paper presented at the X Congreso Nacional de ACEDE, Oviedo
(Spain).
18
Marshak, R.J. (1993), “Managing the Metaphors of Change”, Organizational Dynamics,
22 (1), pp. 44-56.
Maurer, R. (1996) “Using resistance to build support for change”, The Journal for
Quality and Participation, 19 (3), pp. 56-66.
Mezias, S.J. and Glynn, M.A. (1993) “The three faces of corporate renewal: institution,
revolution, and evolution”, Strategic Management Journal, 14, pp. 77-101.
Morrison, E.W. and Milliken, F.J. (2000) “Organizational silence: a barrier to change
and development in a pluralistic world”, Academy of Management Review, 25
(4), pp. 706-725.
Nadler, D.A. and Tushman, M.L. (1989) “Organizational Frame Bending: Principles for
Managing Reorientation”, Academy of Management Executive, 3, pp. 194-204.
Nadler, D.A. and Tushman, M.L. (1990) “Beyond the Charismatic Leader: Leadership
and Organizational Change”, California Management Review, 32 (2), pp. 77-97.
Nemeth, C.J. (1997) “Managing innovation: When less is more”, California
Management Review, 40 (1), pp. 59-74.
Piderit, S.K. (2000) “Rethinking resistance and recognizing ambivalence: a
multidimensional view of attitudes toward an organizational change”, Academy of
Management Review, 25 (4), pp. 783-794.
Reichers, A.E., Wanous, J.P. and Austin, J.T. (1997) “Understanding and managing
cynicism about organizational change”, Academy of Management Executive, 11
(1), pp. 48-59.
Ruiz, J. and Lorenzo, J.D. (1999) “Cambio estratégico y renovación organizativa:
utilización de las capacidades latentes y periféricas”, Revista Europea de
Dirección y Economía de la Empresa, 8 (4), pp. 71-82.
19
Rumelt, R.P. (1995), “ Inertia and transformation”, in Montgomery, C.A., Resource-
Based and Evolutionary Theories of the Firm, Kluwer Academic Publishers,
Massachusetts, pp. 101-132.
Schalk, R., Campbell, J.W. and Freese, C. (1998) “Change and employee behaviour”,
Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 19 (3), pp. 157-163.
Starbuck, W., Greve, A. and Hedberg, B.L.T. (1978) “Responding to crisis”, Journal of
Business Administration, 9 (2), pp. 111-137.
Strebel, P. (1994) “Choosing the right change path”, California Management Review,
36 (2), pp. 29-51.
Van de Ven, A.H. and Poole, M.S. (1995) “Explaining development and change in
organizations”, Academy of Management Review, 20 (3), pp. 510-540.
Waddell, D. and Sohal, A.S. (1998) “Resistance: a constructive tool for change
management”, Management Decision, 36 (8), pp. 543-548.
Zaltman, G. and Duncan, R. (1977), Strategies for Planned Change, Wiley, Toronto.
Zeffane, R. (1996) “Dynamics of strategic change: critical issues in fostering positive
organizational change”, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 17 (7),
pp. 36-43.
20
TABLE 1. SOURCES OF RESISTANCE OR INERTIA
Myopia
Denial
Perpetuation of ideas
Implicit assumptions
Communication barriers
Distorted perception,
interpretation barriers
and vague strategic
priorities
Organizational silence
Direct costs of change
Cannibalization costs
Cross subsidy comforts
Past failures
Low motivation
Different interests among employees and management
Fast and complex environmental changes
Resignation
INERTIA IN THE
FORMULATION
STAGE
Lack of a creative
response Inadequate strategic vision
Implementation climate and relation between change
values and organizational values
Departmental politics
Incommensurable beliefs
Deep rooted values
Political and cultural
deadlocks
Forgetfulness of the social dimension of changes
Leadership inaction
Embedded routines
Collective action problems
Capabilities gap
INERTIA IN THE
IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
Other sources
Cynicism
21
TABLE 2. RESULTS OF THE SOURCES OF RESISTANCE, ORDERED BY
MEANS
Sources of resistance or inertia to change Mean
Deep-rooted values 2.70
Capabilities gap 2.42
Departmental politics 2.42
Low motivation due to cannibalization costs and cross subsidy comforts 2.31
Incommensurable beliefs 2.31
Different interests among employees and management 2.27
Communication barriers 2.23
Organizational silence 2.20
Low motivation due to direct costs of change 2.15
Myopia, denial, perpetuation of ideas, implicit assumptions 2.11
Lack of a creative response due to fast and complex environmental changes 2.05
Lack of a creative response due to inadequate strategic vision 2.04
Change values opposite to organizational values 2.04
Forgetfulness of the social dimension of changes due to obsession of promoter 2.01
Lack of a creative response due to resignation 1.96
Leadership inaction, embedded routines, collective action problems 1.94
Cynicism 1.84
Forgetfulness of the social dimension of changes due to forgetting supervisors 1.67
Low motivation due to past failures 1.65
Note: some of the factors generated (Table 1) were merged, as in the pilot test we found thelist of factors was too long.
22
TABLE 3. MAIN RESULTS OF THE SOURCES OF RESISTANCE,
DISTINGUISHING TYPES OF CHANGE
Resistance or inertia Evolut.
change
Strateg.
change F
Lack of a creative response due to resignation 1,68 2,74 13,82***
Deep-rooted values 2,18 3,42 13,01***
Different interests among employees and management 1,96 2,79 7,68***
Lack of a creative response due to fast and complex environmental changes 1,80 2,79 7,62***
Communication barriers 2,00 2,63 4,98**
Change values opposite to organizational values 1,80 2,56 4,92**
Myopia, denial, perpetuation of ideas, implicit assumptions 1,94 2,58 4,70**
Organizational silence 1,90 2,53 4,33**
Capabilities gap 2,16 2,95 4,29**
Note: ** p < 0,05 ** p < 0,01